Is the primary system rigged ?

[Blarch]

We have the electoral college so that all states will be represented. So that no single state, or small group of states gets all the attention. We also vote on the same day, how one state votes doesn't really influence how another state votes.

But the primaries are different. It seems all the attention is given to a single state or a small group of states. They vote first and then influence how other states vote. A large group of states are not represented, the decision is made before they even vote.

Do we need change ?

[stillcool]

1. The whole process is rigged..

always has been.
http://www.populistamerica.com/cracks_in_the_constitution

[Clovis Sangrail]

2. yes

It seems to me that we should do the primaries like we do the general... all at the same time.
Maybe this whole asinine 'vying for first' thing among the states will push us into a change.

[RL3AO]

3. Well. If every state voted on the same day

Clinton would be the Dem nominee, so right now I think the current system looks pretty good. :)

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. Your premise is incorrect

We have the Electoral College because the United States is not a democracy but a republic of states. As such it is the states who elect the president, not the people.

[Blarch]

5. my bad,

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. Cute. But seriously....

Primaries or caucuses have no constitutional basis. They exist entirely by virtue of the 10th Amendment and only to create transparency in how a political party selects its own nominee. It would be a violation of a party's First Amendment rights of assembly and free association for any government agency to impose itself into the process against the desires of the party. Witness Washington, Florida and other states where this has become an issue: Party rules in such cases ALWAYS trump law.

When and how a political party choses its delegates to the party's national convention is strictly a matter for the political party to decide. If some state organizations chose to have it earlier or later, that is not a matter for governments to decide. If you want to be a part of the decision, it is your responsibility to be a part of your local and state organization.

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. Remove dupe n/t

[melm00se]

9. and as such

each state, via the primary system, puts forward the candidate(s) they would like to have available to vote for on their presidential ballot.

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. That is also wrong

States do not put forward candidates. PARTIES put forward candidates. At most, states can issue guidelines to try and make the process of how parties select their candidates as transparent as possible and even there, statutory power is limited: witness how the Washington Democratic Party has always selected delegates based on caucuses, even when Washington officially became a primary state (read this document from Washington's Secretary of State.) Beyond that, you start treading into the constitutionally questionable ground of interfering with an organization's rights of free association which the courts have been pretty consistent in upholding for political parties.

The nomination of candidates is and always has been the choice of the parties, not the state. That is a fundamental distinction that keeps getting lost.

[TomClash]

6. Rich people run the process so it does not have to be rigged nt

[Eurobabe]

11. I begin to wonder, and these superdelegates scare the

bejeezus out of me. :hide:

Now we have to worry about the DLC stealing the convention!